Another take on the Original Enterprise...

[Cary L. Brown]

I was just looking at the structure of the ship. If you want to get into the mechanics of the car, how about this -

The tubes have electrified grooved rails in them, the cars have rollers on pins - similar to the way bi-fold closet doors work. Rollers are connected to small motors. Place these at various points on the car's exterior surface or extending on rods from the cars edges. This keeps the car in the correct orientation and the contact between the rails and rollers becomes a natural electrical connection, meaning the cars don't need an onboard power source.

So, basically, this is an internal "subway system" and the tubes are equivalent to subway tunnels. Whereas I'm using a model more approximating the little pneumatic tube systems you still see at banks sometimes (and which used to be everywhere, in the pre-computer days).

I'll stick with mine for now... but I can see how your suggestion would work. The tubes aren't really doing anything except keeping the cars separate from the habitable spaces in yours. In mine, the tubes are "the rails" and are what constrain the cars. Different approaches, both workable.

 

[Ziz]

I never liked the pneumatic tube concept. That means you have to have an airtight seal at every door, whether there's a car there or not, otherwise the system loses pressure. With an electrically based system, air pressure isn't a concern.

In the pressurized system, the change in weight when people enter or exit changes the car's terminal velocity. A pressurized system has to compensate for that on the fly. An electrical system can just increase power at stops to magnetically hold the car in place until it needs to move again.

Also, in the pressurized system, if the ship takes a hit in battle and a tube is ruptured, the explosive decompression would be even more violent than that of a habitable area. That would probably rip an even bigger hole in the ship than a non-pressurized system.

The difference with the tube system at the banks is that those canisters don't stop until they hit the end of a tube, and when it does, the impact makes contents rattle around. Fine for inanimate objects, not very comfortable for live passengers. Turbolift cars have to stop at specific locations along the tube, and do it smoothly.

 

[Praetor]

Wow. Just wow. Still loving this, mucho. I'm pretty okay with the turbolifts in the neck the way they are.

(You do realize that now that you've done that slice-down animation through the secondary hull that you'll have to do one of those for the finished model, right? )

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I never liked the pneumatic tube concept. That means you have to have an airtight seal at every door, whether there's a car there or not, otherwise the system loses pressure. With an electrically based system, air pressure isn't a concern.

You're totally missing my point. I didn't say that these ARE pneumatic tubes. It's not air pressure moving these cars through the ship, it's (as I've stated pretty clearly already) field devices in the ceiling of the car interacting with field generators adjacent to the tubes. Think of it as magnets being pulled by electromagnets.

The reference to the tube system is based upon the fact that the tubes, themselves, are the "rails" in that system. And your approach, as I stated, is more related to subway systems, where there are separate mechanical rails and the "tubes" are only there to keep stuff from outside falling in, and are never intended to be too close to the cars.

In the pressurized system, the change in weight when people enter or exit changes the car's terminal velocity. A pressurized system has to compensate for that on the fly. An electrical system can just increase power at stops to magnetically hold the car in place until it needs to move again.

Also, in the pressurized system, if the ship takes a hit in battle and a tube is ruptured, the explosive decompression would be even more violent than that of a habitable area. That would probably rip an even bigger hole in the ship than a non-pressurized system.

The difference with the tube system at the banks is that those canisters don't stop until they hit the end of a tube, and when it does, the impact makes contents rattle around. Fine for inanimate objects, not very comfortable for live passengers. Turbolift cars have to stop at specific locations along the tube, and do it smoothly.

Which, if you go back and read what I've said (in the very few posts on lifts I've made so far) is not a criticism of my approach.

Don't just look at the pictures, read the words, too. You seem to have missed this:

There are also field devices in the overhead section of the car which interact with the driver coils in the tube structure, allowing the car to be propelled by the tube system through these near-zero-friction tube liners I've already modeled.

 

[TIN_MAN]

About those turbo lifts? They are so called because they use turbines are they not? Presumably like a jet engine, but less powerfull. They would probably be most efficient if the shafts were '0' gravity, or at least, the cars themselves had built in anti grav units? Just some thoughts, FWIW.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

About those turbo lifts? They are so called because they use turbines are they not? Presumably like a jet engine, but less powerfull.

Traditionally, that's what the word really means... or rather, the prefix, in this case. "Turbo-" means "driven by a turbine."

More recently, we've seen lots of things which have no real turbomachinery associated with them which are still called "Turbo"... in this case, the term has begun to be associated with "faster than normal." I'm not sure why the TOS cars were called given the "turbo" prefix, but I suspect that it was for this reason, rather than the more accurate "driven by turbine" definition.

Of course, there's yet another possibility...

Turbo \Tur"bo\, n. [L. turbo, -inis, a top. See Turbine.]
(Zo["o]l.)
Any one of numerous marine gastropods of the genus Turbo or family Turbinid[ae], usually having a turbinate shell, pearly on the inside, and a calcareous operculum.

SOOOOO... maybe the lift tubes are lubricated with snail slime?

They would probably be most efficient if the shafts were '0' gravity, or at least, the cars themselves had built in anti grav units? Just some thoughts, FWIW.

I agree about zero-g. I don't intend for there to be "native gravity generation" in the shafts, but I'm assuming that the gravity generation throughout the ship will inevitably "bleed in" to the tubes, so perhaps the average tube will have 2/3g rather than 1g, more or less depending on tube layout (vertical tubes probably lower, horizontal ones probably higher). It seems to me that it would take more power expenditure to create "hard-edged" gravity cut-offs than it would to simply work past the gravity.

As for the cars, well, I did give them grav/inertia units for the passengers, and the various hardware is at the top. Creating a local antigrav field, again required to be closely matched to the shape of the car (no bleed-over) seems very difficult, compared to simply pulling the car along. In other words... whichever is most reliable and energy-efficient is the one we ought to use.

Of course... we know (from various episodes of TOS and TNG) that there is gravity in the lift tubes, anyway, don't we?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

So, nobody has any better info on the "landing light" colors??? C'mon, I need help here!

 

[Shaw]

So, nobody has any better info on the "landing light" colors??? C'mon, I need help here!

There are lots of shots, but most have two on one side dark (most likely a burnt out bulb). The best shots I know of before the bulb burnt out can be found in the closing minutes of "The Alternative Factor" (shots can be seen here).

It looks like red-red-green-red-red to me in those shots, but in some others shots the green appears blue.

If we are talking about matching the model itself, red-amber-green-amber-red (from images of the last major restoration by Ed Miarecki).

 

[Cary L. Brown]

So, nobody has any better info on the "landing light" colors??? C'mon, I need help here!

There are lots of shots, but most have two on one side dark (most likely a burnt out bulb). The best shots I know of before the bulb burnt out can be found in the closing minutes of "The Alternative Factor" (shots can be seen here).

It looks like red-red-green-red-red to me in those shots, but in some others shots the green appears blue.

If we are talking about matching the model itself, red-amber-green-amber-red (from images of the last major restoration by Ed Miarecki).

Thanks, David!

I was unable to pull anything better than that from my DVD set, too...

Actually, I think that Miarecki probably got the intent right. But I was sure that at some point I'd seen "purple" or "blue" in there, as you say.

All other evidence being absent, I think I'm going to think of this as being patterned off of contemporary aviation patterns... so if you're outside of the proper "glide slope" the red lamps are lit... if you're on the ragged edge, the yellow/amber ones are lit, and if you're on the correct glide slope, the green one would be lit. Of course, that means that they should normally not be lit at all.... except when a shuttle is landing. Still... I think I like that idea.

Now... regarding Jefferies Tubes.

The Enterprise had only one Jefferies Tube set, which was evidently intended to represent multiple locations throughout the ship. In my take, there will be multiple versions of this, including vertical and horizontal ones. However, there are multiple "slanted" tubes on the ship as well. At least one per nacelle pylon (I'm assuming no more than that, but could change my mind), plus FOUR through the secondary hull and through the dorsal. I don't need to explain where the pylon tubes would be, but here are the dorsal ones:

They basically run through the keel structural members, which are just generally packed (nearly solid) with all variety of major utility plumbing and wiring.

At the disconnect point, on the dorsal upper surface, you can more clearly see how these tubes run through. The inset (hollow) areas around each tube would actually be jam-packed with cables and tubing, but I didn't feel it was necessary to model that... gotta draw the line someplace!

I'm reasonably comfortable with the dorsal interface I've got here. Power/engineering systems go up the trailing edge, data/communication/life-support connections are on the leading edge.

The lift tube pass through is obvious. But you can also see the two ladderways further aft (complete with the little triangular ladders inside each). Each of those (lift tube and ladder tubes) will have sliding-pocket-door type hatches to seal them off in the case of disconnection. This means a short interruption in the ladder, but only a couple of rungs... and I think that can be taken care of by having the primary-hull-side ladders retract upwards at separation.

Externally, well... there are pads, which I think are obvious, and the entire top section is essentially a single massive plate with three perforated rails. There are pins which pass through these rails (and their matching features on the primary hull side). At separation, explosive charges eject the pins laterally (steered very slightly downwards to avoid hitting the primary hull underside, of course) This gives me a very robust interface, which takes up very little space, and can be separated in case of an emergency (while requiring a drydock to reattach). And I can incorporate as much structure inside the primary hull as I need to ensure robustness... separate from this.

I still think that this is the weak point of the design, but I'm happier with my solution than I thought I was likely to be. I think this could actually WORK (given sufficient structure inside the dish side, obviously!)

 

[Shaw]

Doing a quick search through my collection, these are the two best images (that are in color) of that area...

I normally don't deal with color in my drawings, so I had never bothered to look for this detail before. I'll have to see if there are any better images.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Doing a quick search through my collection, these are the two best images (that are in color) of that area...

I normally don't deal with color in my drawings, so I had never bothered to look for this detail before. I'll have to see if there are any better images.

That's actually very, very helpful... I've been able to extract pixel color, and I am pretty well convinced that the intention was for this to be symmetrical as well.

Was that from the original Smithsonian restoration? Damn, but somebody'd done a number on that model!

 

[Shaw]

These are from the 1991 disassembly and cleaning of the parts by Miarecki.

When the model arrived at the Garber Facility in 1974 it was in pretty bad shape and missing a number of parts. The restorers weren't familiar with the model, so they painted over most of it and fabricated replacement parts that looked like what they went in those places. And additional restoration was done in 1984 (which involved more painting).

Miarecki was attempting to get back to the original color and finish of the model.

The holes in the model that seem haphazard and rough... those are from the original modification of the model in August 1965 when lighting was added to the model.

The only images I have from the original restoration (actually, the delivery to Garber) are in black & white.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

David, you have the most amazing collection of stuff...

Based upon "pixel_picking" from that image (and then assuming that they're brighter when backlit) I've come up with this... I also got rid of the end-rounding for the light lenses, which I thought would look better but really didn't.

While I was rendering, I thought I'd take a look at what separation would look like, so here are a couple of shots as the secondary hull is being discarded... if I were doing this more formally, I'd have the impulse engines firing (not with "primary-color-red" lighting, but with something much more evidently incandescent in nature!). But I still think that this looks pretty good...

 

[Praetor]

Wow, Cary, that does look quite awesome.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Wow, Cary, that does look quite awesome.

I just want to thank all the folks who've given me praise for what I'm doing here.. I don't respond often because, well... it's hard to come up with a response that doesn't sound smarmy. Other than "thanks."

So... "thanks!"

************

Playing with that separation scheme led me to start thinking about the classic Trek comic story "Debt of Honor." I'm thinking that I might try replicating the Farragut separation shot at some point (though that'll mean that I'll need to come up with a good way to do the "critter projectiles" which is currently out of the scope of this project). I think "Debt of Honor" was the first time anyone ever really, seriously looked at starship separation (other than one early draft of TMP). It's still a personal favorite of mine. (My second favorite, after "All Those Years Ago..." which was the story of Kirk's first mission on the Enterprise, far better than any of the alternative versions seen afterwards.)

If only I could texture worth a @#$*...

 

[Praetor]

Similarly, Cary, I don't reply with more than an 'Awesome' because frankly I haven't had a lot more constructive input, but I know how valuable it can be to have some kind of feedback, even if it is just a compliment.

Besides which, what you've come up with is so well thought out, and from a really unique perspective (from your engineering experience) that I'd hate to try to steer your efforts. I'm really interested in seeing where that engineering experience takes you.

And, if I could texture worth a crap, I'd gladly volunteer to do it for you. Perhaps one of our fellow more texture-talented BBSers would, though?

 

[Psion]

Cary, I continue to enjoy this project as much as when you started it. Amazing attention to detail, sir!

I have a complaint, though not with you work, but with work done on the original model and I'd appreciate any thoughts you have on this matter. The glass shells over the port and starboard running lights are awfully damn big. Huge even. If I've forgotten any comments you've made on these systems in the past, I apologize, but why do you think they're so big and would you consider "modernizing" them for a more accurate size?

 

[Santaman]

They also have blinkers installed inside, you know for when the Enterprise makes a turn.

As for this project, utterly great, a lovely sneak and peek of the things you always imagined but never got to see on the show.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I have a complaint, though not with you work, but with work done on the original model and I'd appreciate any thoughts you have on this matter. The glass shells over the port and starboard running lights are awfully damn big. Huge even. If I've forgotten any comments you've made on these systems in the past, I apologize, but why do you think they're so big and would you consider "modernizing" them for a more accurate size?

Well, for the sake of discussion, let's take a closer look at those features...

It's very interesting to note that there isn't just one lamp there, but several. The one "error" I seriously thought about correcting was to make the underside lamps colored as well... but that would've looked much different than what was seen on-screen, though technically it ought to have been that way.

The top lamp is larger than the bottom one. Each of the two larger lamps are what were once commercially-available bulbs, in what appear to be screw-in sockets. You used to see a lot of these bulbs around, for holiday lights and so forth, before mini-lights, and then LED Christmas lights came along.

However, it's worthwhile to note that there is another, smaller lamp next to the "big one" and yet another on the outer edge of the saucer. In order to accomplish what I think you're asking, the solution would be to remove the big lamp entirely, and just leave the little ones. A fair assessment?

So why did they not do that at the time? Well, first off, consider "production" constraints. You were looking at pretty low-res TV images, and the little lamps simply wouldn't show up on-screen. So they had to have larger lamps to get the desired effect and have it show up.

Okay, so that makes sense... but does having this make any sense in "real" terms? (That is, if you were designing a real starship to actually operate in space.)

Actually, yeah, I think it probably does, and for very much the same reason.

Despite the tendency for latter-day Trek effects to show ships flying so close that they could practically scrape paint, in a real-world situation, you'd almost never let yourself get that close to another vessel, unless you were planning to dock. Space, after all, is big... really, really big.

So, imagine that you're at extreme visual range... the little, tiny lamps would be totally undetectable. But the big ones would probably be able to be made out, and as a result you'd be able to determine the direction of travel of the ship you were observing, and even the size (within reason)... even if you were in actual deep space, where there is effectively no light except for "self-illumination" (starlight being so dim, relative to what our eyes can perceive, that it's not worth discussing, as far as I'm concerned).

So... "big lamps" make sense if you're going for "extreme range visibility," I think.

Note that "big" isn't the same as "bright," of course... it's entirely possible that the little lights could be brighter, per distance from bulb-center, than the big ones are.

Maybe the ship wouldn't operate both sets of lamps at once... maybe neither, on occasion.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I don't have a problem with the running lights being inside of those big glass spheres... just as long as the spheres don't look like classic 1950s/60s christmas tree lights inside!

 

[addendum]

Absolutely gorgeous work, Cary. I've been watching you progress on this for a few weeks and decided it was time for me to stop lurking. Keep it up!